The collection of a national DNA
database is an idea that has been circulating for a very long time. In the United States, the Title 42 Chapter
136 of the U.S Code states that the collection of DNA samples can only be
obtained by individuals in custody, individuals on release, parole or
probation, and individuals already in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). The Attorney General, Director of the Bureau
of Prisons, the probation office, or anyone delegated by these people, can only
collect DNA. DNA can only be collected
from people who are guilty of a class A misdemeanor and punished in accordance
with title 18. This U.S Code goes more
into detail about what is determined a felony and what is described as a DNA
sample. These provisions are very
different from those in the UK.
Since 1994,
the UK has been collecting DNA from people all around the nation and now holds
DNA samples from 2.7 million people (5.2% of the population). The DNA collected is largely associated with
people who have never been charged or convicted of any crimes. The British Parliament created the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act in 1994.
This act gives the police the right to take anyone’s DNA without
consent, as long as they committed a “recordable” offense. This could mean anywhere from a casual
traffic stop or being drunk and disorderly to a robbery or murder. In 2001, the law was changed to enable
permanent retention of the DNA sample profiles for people who were charged but
not proceeded against. The ultimate goal
of this is Act is to collect DNA from all citizens, to make a society where
justice is accurately served to those who are guilty, and providing freedom to
those who are innocent.
The use of
“DNA Dragnets” has become a popular way to collect citizen DNA. Dragnets are used to collect a pool of DNA,
which is then run through the system to see if they can find a match. In September of 2004, a student at the
University of Oklahoma was raped and murdered on her way home from class. The investigator, John Maddox, found the DNA
of the rapist, and created an arrest warrant for him under the name John
Doe. This was possible because they had
the DNA evidence, but they did not know who he was. So Maddox asked for people to volunteer their
DNA. The article states, “In most cases,
where people refused, Kuykendall got the courts to force them to give DNA. But
Juli's parents, Mary Jean and Bud Busken, wonder why any innocent person would
hesitate. "The bottom line to me is there's only two people that don't
want to have DNA taken, and that's a person that has done something wrong, or
going to do something wrong," says Bud Busken.” DNA collection is perfectly legal as long as
it is voluntary. This article was really
interesting so if you want to check it out you can do so here.
I find it
hard to justify the need for a national DNA database with every single citizen’s
DNA and even less the use of dragnets. I
feel like a criminal can just refuse to have his DNA tested, and unless they
have any other evidence, they won’t be able to get a warrant to force the
suspect to give DNA. I do not think that
the United States should create a national DNA database or allow the use of DNA
dragnets because it infringes on the citizens right to privacy by being
excessive and unreasonable.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/14135a
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490298/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-dragnet/
I thought that this was a well researched article and found it interesting to compare the DNA standards here in the US compared to the UK. I agree with your conclusion that there isn't really a need for DNA dragnets because it infringes on the rights of citizens. I disagree with Bud Busken's comments, and I want to point that our because that kind of thinking leads to a regression of privacy rights, when in reality privacy is not something that solely protects secrets or "bad things", it also has to do with the principle about having control over personal information.
ReplyDeleteIt seems reasonable to me that people who are arrested should have their DNA taken just like we store people's mugshots and fingerprints. On the other hand I don't think that we need a mandatory DNA database on all citizens. It is unnecessary and like you mentioned, fairly ineffective since criminals can just refuse to have their DNA tested without a warrant. DNA testing can definitely be a good thing, especially when there are multiple suspects, but if I was a suspect in a case and didn't commit the crime I would ask for them to compare my DNA, it shouldn't be taken as a default before I am accused of anything.
ReplyDeleteThis is a scary issue. On one hand, DNA testing can be absolutely critical to solving a crime. As the article pointed out, sometimes it's the only element that makes a case solvable. But I think having a database of everyone's DNA is a terrible idea. While it would do wonders for solving crimes, there is just something so invasive about the government having one of my DNA samples for no reason. It sends the message that they are easily able to track me and that they don't fully trust me. I have to agree with what the article you linked said -- no one should have to prove their innocence. We are supposed to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. A government that automatically keeps every citizen on record by DNA is one that has too much power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the UK government's goal of creating a society where justice is accurately served only to the guilty. However, like the previous commenters, I am more concerned about the privacy implications of having a DNA record of all citizens, law abiding or otherwise. There's no denying that DNA testing can be a crucial asset in the law enforcement toolbox, but that doesn't mean a national database is the way to go. And I think that private citizens with no suspicion of wrongdoing should not be required to give DNA; it should be voluntary, or not even gathered from law-abiding citizens.
ReplyDeleteI can see that there would be benefits for the government collecting DNA and having a database. I believe that it would greatly help solve crimes, and help make sure that innocent people are not put in jail. However, as others have said I do believe that collecting DNA from all citizens, whether they have broken the law or not, is unreasonable. I do agree that the collection of DNA of those in custody, as done in the U.S., is justifiable. However, I believe that the storage of this data needs to be highly regulated so that the information does not get into just anyone's hands.
ReplyDeleteI think that a DNA database could be a great tool to assist in solving more crimes. However, it should not be mandatory for your DNA to be collected without a reason, such as a warrant or the UK's "recordable offense" policy. If people like, they may also have the option to volunteer their own sample. Like Emily said, I think that enabling mandatory DNA submission for everyone gives our government too much power.
ReplyDeleteThis whole DNA database seems a little fishy when our justice system is supposed to uphold an "innocent until proven guilty" mentality. I'm just fine with allowing DNA to be collected from individuals who volunteer their DNA, but a policy like the UK's which collects DNA indiscriminately is certainly a privacy infringement. I think the phrase "This act gives the police the right to take anyone’s DNA without consent" makes the issue fairly clear, and it certainly doesn't paint a nice picture.
ReplyDelete